Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Aussie105

(5,318 posts)

16. Answers my question.

Reply to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2020, 08:07 AM

Oct 2020

Why 9?
Answer: no particular reason.

A Biden administration could move to add two more, to balance out the Trump appointees, or reduce it by two, and use the 'last in first out' to get rid of those Trump appointees.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The size of the Supreme Court has been legally changed 7 times [View all] octoberlib Oct 2020 OP

Excellent post! DonaldsRump Oct 2020 #1

Another DU post made the point that there are now 13 circuits so we need 13 Justices. octoberlib Oct 2020 #3

I saw that too DonaldsRump Oct 2020 #5

Aim for 15... settle for 13. NurseJackie Oct 2020 #13

2016 - 2017: 8 seats applegrove Oct 2020 #2

and was never illegally changed. 5X Oct 2020 #4

Yes, it was illegally changed by McConnell in 2016; reduced to 8 for a year. lagomorph777 Oct 2020 #33

Well, well, well. Thank you Hekate Oct 2020 #6

I agree with all of this Sunsky Oct 2020 #7

I actually agree with this. We gotta win first. octoberlib Oct 2020 #10

I believe this is Biden's thought process as well Sunsky Oct 2020 #20

Thanks for posting Sherman A1 Oct 2020 #8

mitch changed it to 8 for almost a year.. samnsara Oct 2020 #9

We should have 13 Supreme Court Justices -- one for every federal court of appeals RedSpartan Oct 2020 #11

That seems to be the right number... SKKY Oct 2020 #18

That's the right number we'll need infullview Oct 2020 #19

There's also workload and population bucolic_frolic Oct 2020 #12

Shhhhh. Let's let the RWers think their biased RW SCOTUS Dark n Stormy Knight Oct 2020 #14

It's court UN-packing. Moscow Mitch fudge-packed it. lagomorph777 Oct 2020 #22

IF you don't hammer the shit out of the Republicans for this, they will just carry on next time. OnDoutside Oct 2020 #15

+1 dalton99a Oct 2020 #28

Answers my question. Aussie105 Oct 2020 #16

I like that one. TruckFump Oct 2020 #21

Would require 3 more to "balance" Trump appointees, or 4 more to approximate public opinion. lagomorph777 Oct 2020 #23

Yeah, we get it. Can we please wait a week + a day to talk about this? PLEASE?!? jpljr77 Oct 2020 #17

Because Republicans read DU and they have no idea anybody's thinking about this? lagomorph777 Oct 2020 #24

Let's compare 1869 (1870) to current day. Delmette2.0 Oct 2020 #25

Let's compare 1869 (1870) to current day. Delmette2.0 Oct 2020 #26

What is the legality of making immediate term limits for SC Justices? SomedayKindaLove Oct 2020 #27

I think it can be changed by Congress because they just had a bill with term limits for octoberlib Oct 2020 #29

Unconstitutional onenote Oct 2020 #31

A line in Gore Vidal's "Lincoln" makes a lot more sense, now that I know there were mahatmakanejeeves Oct 2020 #30

So it can be DECREASED dsharp88 Oct 2020 #32